This makes sense, but I don't understand why they didn't make the default behavior equivalent the break, and provide a "fallthrough" keyword or something similar that does the same as the default requirements.
What I mean is, why did they make the default the way they did? It seems like an error to do so, and there is no technical reason it couldn't be done the other way.
I disagree. They would have been first to market with a technology on a massive roll-out.
Anyone competing would have to have a competing technology, unless USPS licensed it to them.
In effect, competition would fragment the market, and with the head-start the USPS had, it is very likely it would have won.
I think had the USPS actually gone ahead with the plan, we might all have very different email addresses right now (either because we would be using a fragmented service, akin to the old AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve days, or because we all use USPS addresses.)
The code clutter and need to recompile all the time is still a problem with log4j.
Additionally, I thought the log4j 'compiling out' was just taking advantage of a Java language feature where dead code is not executed, but you still had to incur a (small) runtime penalty of 1-2ms. Is this no longer true?
The problem with this is it STILL punishes the people that bought 10.0, the early adopters that worked to grow the platform.
Sure, lots of people rushed and bought 10.1, because it was the first version that was really usable. And all of those people got to take advantage of the apps written by the early adopters.
Apple should cough it up and let people that paid for 10.0 retail box get a $20 upgrade this time around. Return the favor!
The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X," pronounced "Mac oh-ess ten."...which makes it even stupider, because now the OS has a number in it (for no reason) and it won't match the version number once 11.0 comes out.
Why didn't Apple just call it OS X (as in, ecks)?? Then they could sensibly have any version numbers they want, AND not have to correct everyone that calls it that anyways.
Your interests are not very likely to be #1 anyway.
That's a resignation I don't think many developers are willing to accept. Nobody will put you first except yourself. And a smart developer can look out for themselves.
But it's always good for the publisher. That's usually most of the problem. What's good for a developer is to involve publishers only when it is absolutely necessary.
Not necessarily. Smart developers can work almost any situation in their favor if they know what's up and how to handle it. Remember, there is more than one publisher out there...
I suppose it would free up development teams from having to drag around all the extra weight of the executive type people who have to deal with publishers, get funding etc.
That's not what would happen, because now these people would be needed to manage the contact with Carbon6. And I really doubt Carbon6 would completely isolate the team from the publisher - that would be unnatural.
I'd imagine that what carbon6 are hoping to do is to tempt entire teams away from whatever studio / publisher they are currently working for and setting up on their own.
This is exactly what they are trying to do, but I don't see the incentive for a team to jump ship. It seems inevitable that they would lose royalty points, etc... What do they get out of it?
Also there may be teams around who have great coders / artists but need a good solid design to work with - which is something I think carbon6 are offering. (I sure wouldn't like to work in that sort of environment though!)
This seems puzzling, because there is no shortage of design in the industry. Granted, not all of it is AAA great, but there is a lot out there to be found, particularly in mod communities.
However I can see the need to be set up with a promising design from the start. So maybe there is some utility in this - helping a fledgling studio start. However, that clearly can't be the only aspect of Carbon6's buisness plan. They would be obselete in 3 years.
The problem with this arrangement is, these are all things most development teams are very capable of doing on their own. Presumably, Carbon6 would take a large chunk of the royalties from the game as compensation; however, what is the real benefit of working with them?
The hex editing mode is really nice, as is integration into the shell (right click on any file to edit it, text or binary!)
UltraEdit Does a good job of syntax highlighting, and it has lots of options. It supports large files, is very fast, and not too heavy when it comes to resources.
You have got to be kidding. nVIDIA is known for having rock solid drivers - I've never had a crash while running them, and most other people I know haven't either.
ATI is known for its poor drivers, and has been for a long time.
I don't know why more people don't go for the old standby, water.
I used to be a heavy soda drinker, consuming at least 5 every work day. One day, I didn't have enough change to buy sodas, and I drank water all day.
I can not adequately describe how much better I felt, and how much more productive I was. I felt like my whole body was just flushed out, especially my brain.
Ever since, I have only gone for a soda when I need a really quick rush of sugar or calories. This is usually true in the last hour or two before I head home to eat dinner.
Try drinking nothing but water for an entire week at work, and see if you find yourself feeling better and thinking better as I did.
I'd argue it is considerably more than a service pack.
It's got the new Rendezvous features built in. It has Quartz Extreme. It has major redesign in the internals to make everything load faster, etc...
I agree its not like win95->win98. But that is the point I was trying to make. Apple's mentality is fundamentally different from Microsoft's plan for Windows.
Sure MS releases Service Packs, but those don't include such sweeping new funationality. Instead, MS waits for the yearly Windows redux to bring that in, changing it all at once.
Apple seems to favor a more gradual update system, a strategy seen in the development of OS patches, to the 'point releases' like 10.1.x, to the more major updates like Jaguar.
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
Since when is it bad to keep your products up to date, adding compelling new features all the time? This is something that I think Apple has executed very well, and few other companies have really mastered. Microsoft in particular doesn't seem to get it.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Excuse me? AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature. Some have called OS X 10.0 something akin to Final Public Beta, and in many respects they are right. It wasn't until 10.1 that the system was really usable for end users, and included enough enhancements for ISVs. But releasing 10.1 was all about delivering on the promise of a stable, next-generation computing platform - something that *is* driving revenue.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar, although he did see a good market for those on the older system, Mac OS 9.
Sorry but I think this is unfounded also. Apple has EOL'd OS 9, and this past quarter saw some of the most important apps make the switch (namely Photoshop). There is no going back folks. OS X is the way of the future, Apple has said so, ISVs agree, and users are coming along as their favorite apps migrate.
The switch won't happen overnight, true; however, for Apple, it doesn't have to. The important thing is, all new Apple machines ship with OS X, and have for some time. This means all those interested in upgrades will make the switch. Other users will come along as their favorite apps are migrated.
OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh. These analysts don't have a clue, IMO.
Re:I hate to be the bad guy here
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
But that's the beauty of a causal loop.
He could have sent Crowe almost ANYWHERE. The causal loop would work itself out.
Sure, the amount of time between the ball dropping and the killing might be different dependent on the location, etc... but it doesn't matter, because once set in motion, the events will occur.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes sense, but I don't understand why they didn't make the default behavior equivalent the break, and provide a "fallthrough" keyword or something similar that does the same as the default requirements.
What I mean is, why did they make the default the way they did? It seems like an error to do so, and there is no technical reason it couldn't be done the other way.
Except I thought good compilers these days are able to recognize a sitation like this an inline the function?
Anyone have good profiling tools available for the really good compilers?
I wholeheartedly agree.
I have always looked at the default fall-through behavior of the case in C as a design error - a complete disaster waiting to happen.
Why is it so?
I'll bite.
What's wrong with the algorithm?
Predictable runtime, finite outcome.
No, data is the plural of datum.
An anecdote is just an unsupportable statement.
I disagree. They would have been first to market with a technology on a massive roll-out.
Anyone competing would have to have a competing technology, unless USPS licensed it to them.
In effect, competition would fragment the market, and with the head-start the USPS had, it is very likely it would have won.
I think had the USPS actually gone ahead with the plan, we might all have very different email addresses right now (either because we would be using a fragmented service, akin to the old AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve days, or because we all use USPS addresses.)
The code clutter and need to recompile all the time is still a problem with log4j.
Additionally, I thought the log4j 'compiling out' was just taking advantage of a Java language feature where dead code is not executed, but you still had to incur a (small) runtime penalty of 1-2ms. Is this no longer true?
This is not data, this is an anecdote.
The problem with this is it STILL punishes the people that bought 10.0, the early adopters that worked to grow the platform.
Sure, lots of people rushed and bought 10.1, because it was the first version that was really usable. And all of those people got to take advantage of the apps written by the early adopters.
Apple should cough it up and let people that paid for 10.0 retail box get a $20 upgrade this time around. Return the favor!
The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X," pronounced "Mac oh-ess ten." ...which makes it even stupider, because now the OS has a number in it (for no reason) and it won't match the version number once 11.0 comes out.
Why didn't Apple just call it OS X (as in, ecks)?? Then they could sensibly have any version numbers they want, AND not have to correct everyone that calls it that anyways.
Your interests are not very likely to be #1 anyway.
That's a resignation I don't think many developers are willing to accept. Nobody will put you first except yourself. And a smart developer can look out for themselves.
But it's always good for the publisher. That's usually most of the problem. What's good for a developer is to involve publishers only when it is absolutely necessary.
Not necessarily. Smart developers can work almost any situation in their favor if they know what's up and how to handle it. Remember, there is more than one publisher out there...
But that is the problem. Having someone else do it ensures that your interests are not always #1.
What is good for a developer is not necessarily good for the middle-man, and vice versa.
I suppose it would free up development teams from having to drag around all the extra weight of the executive type people who have to deal with publishers, get funding etc.
That's not what would happen, because now these people would be needed to manage the contact with Carbon6. And I really doubt Carbon6 would completely isolate the team from the publisher - that would be unnatural.
I'd imagine that what carbon6 are hoping to do is to tempt entire teams away from whatever studio / publisher they are currently working for and setting up on their own.
This is exactly what they are trying to do, but I don't see the incentive for a team to jump ship. It seems inevitable that they would lose royalty points, etc... What do they get out of it?
Also there may be teams around who have great coders / artists but need a good solid design to work with - which is something I think carbon6 are offering. (I sure wouldn't like to work in that sort of environment though!)
This seems puzzling, because there is no shortage of design in the industry. Granted, not all of it is AAA great, but there is a lot out there to be found, particularly in mod communities.
However I can see the need to be set up with a promising design from the start. So maybe there is some utility in this - helping a fledgling studio start. However, that clearly can't be the only aspect of Carbon6's buisness plan. They would be obselete in 3 years.
The problem with this arrangement is, these are all things most development teams are very capable of doing on their own. Presumably, Carbon6 would take a large chunk of the royalties from the game as compensation; however, what is the real benefit of working with them?
Is the inverse true? Does the current path through the universe mean fewer cosmic rays are hitting us, and leading to global warming?
Could this be a factor?
I love UltraEdit.
The hex editing mode is really nice, as is integration into the shell (right click on any file to edit it, text or binary!)
UltraEdit Does a good job of syntax highlighting, and it has lots of options. It supports large files, is very fast, and not too heavy when it comes to resources.
Ever uninstalled ATI drivers?
Up until very recently, it would completely destroy your machine.
stable drivers...ATI still has them beat there
You have got to be kidding. nVIDIA is known for having rock solid drivers - I've never had a crash while running them, and most other people I know haven't either.
ATI is known for its poor drivers, and has been for a long time.
It's too bad your workplace is so dishonest that such a thing didn't work out.
IMO anyone caught taking others things (no matter how insignificant) should be severely disciplined immediately, and possibly terminated.
Its evidence of dishonest and bad character; traits you don't want ruining your team.
I don't know why more people don't go for the old standby, water.
I used to be a heavy soda drinker, consuming at least 5 every work day. One day, I didn't have enough change to buy sodas, and I drank water all day.
I can not adequately describe how much better I felt, and how much more productive I was. I felt like my whole body was just flushed out, especially my brain.
Ever since, I have only gone for a soda when I need a really quick rush of sugar or calories. This is usually true in the last hour or two before I head home to eat dinner.
Try drinking nothing but water for an entire week at work, and see if you find yourself feeling better and thinking better as I did.
The rumor sites were reporting the flat panel iMac for months before the January Macworld Expo.
Vote with your dollars.
What's wrong with that?
I'd argue it is considerably more than a service pack.
It's got the new Rendezvous features built in. It has Quartz Extreme. It has major redesign in the internals to make everything load faster, etc...
I agree its not like win95->win98. But that is the point I was trying to make. Apple's mentality is fundamentally different from Microsoft's plan for Windows.
Sure MS releases Service Packs, but those don't include such sweeping new funationality. Instead, MS waits for the yearly Windows redux to bring that in, changing it all at once.
Apple seems to favor a more gradual update system, a strategy seen in the development of OS patches, to the 'point releases' like 10.1.x, to the more major updates like Jaguar.
Apples and oranges.
This is from the article:
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
Since when is it bad to keep your products up to date, adding compelling new features all the time? This is something that I think Apple has executed very well, and few other companies have really mastered. Microsoft in particular doesn't seem to get it.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Excuse me? AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature. Some have called OS X 10.0 something akin to Final Public Beta, and in many respects they are right. It wasn't until 10.1 that the system was really usable for end users, and included enough enhancements for ISVs. But releasing 10.1 was all about delivering on the promise of a stable, next-generation computing platform - something that *is* driving revenue.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar, although he did see a good market for those on the older system, Mac OS 9.
Sorry but I think this is unfounded also. Apple has EOL'd OS 9, and this past quarter saw some of the most important apps make the switch (namely Photoshop). There is no going back folks. OS X is the way of the future, Apple has said so, ISVs agree, and users are coming along as their favorite apps migrate.
The switch won't happen overnight, true; however, for Apple, it doesn't have to. The important thing is, all new Apple machines ship with OS X, and have for some time. This means all those interested in upgrades will make the switch. Other users will come along as their favorite apps are migrated.
OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh. These analysts don't have a clue, IMO.
But that's the beauty of a causal loop.
He could have sent Crowe almost ANYWHERE. The causal loop would work itself out.
Sure, the amount of time between the ball dropping and the killing might be different dependent on the location, etc... but it doesn't matter, because once set in motion, the events will occur.